Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description goes well beyond the annotations: it requires login, warns that collaborators can only edit their own row while the goal initiator can edit others (403 otherwise), and stresses that contribution is required so clearing must be explicit null rather than omission. These are exactly the behavioral pitfalls an agent needs. Nothing contradicts the annotations (readOnlyHint false, idempotentHint true, destructiveHint false).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is structured with clear tags and bullets, front-loading the use case before the pitfalls. Every line carries distinct information: login requirement, when to use, the combination chain, and two critical pitfalls. There is no filler or repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 3-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers authentication, when to invoke, how to source parameters, permission constraints, and clearing semantics. The combination chain plus read-back verification makes it effectively self-contained. The 403 and null pitfalls address the likely failure modes.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already describes userId and contribution, and the description reinforces this by pointing to get_collaboration_goal as the source of userId and clarifying null-vs-omission clearing semantics. It adds the critical constraint that contribution is required and that omitting it is ambiguous. However, goalId remains undocumented in both the schema and the description, so the explanation does not fully cover all parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the operation: set or update a collaboration goal member's contribution text (≤60 chars), or clear it by passing null. It also ties the tool to the post-invitation scenario, giving some differentiation from invite-time flows. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling tool, so it stops short of full differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It provides an explicit 'when to use' rule: after division of labor is settled, or when the contribution was not written during invitation. The combination chain also tells the agent to fetch members[].userId and myAccess from get_collaboration_goal first. No alternative tool is named and no when-not-to-use rule is stated, so it is clear but slightly incomplete.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.